Thursday, September 1, 2011

On August 31st, I contacted Gary Townsend, Director of Church Staff Benefits for the Florida Baptist Convention to ask him some of the questions we have had on this blog about the Housing Allowance. I sent an email to Gary with some of the questions about how the IRS "housing allowance" rules are applied to ministers in the Florida Baptist Convention. Gary called me back just a few minutes after my email, and he was extremely friendly as we discussed these matters.

I asked Gary how churches can determine whether a specific employee of the church would qualify for the housing allowance. Greg explained that there is a 5-point test that is applied, and that if the minister qualifies for at least 3 of the 5, then likely they would be a "minister":

1. They are ordained, licensed, or commissioned;

2. They can administer the ordinances of the the church;

3. They lead worship, such as delivering a sermon;

4. They have management responsibilities in the church;

5. They are considered to be "religious leaders", usually considered to be "pastors" of the church

These five points cited by Gary are from the Knight case, as I discussed in my previous blog post.

My conversation with Gary confirmed that the current tax law makes it extremely difficult for a woman minister in the typical Southern Baptist Church to qualify for the Housing Allowance. Women don't administer ordinances, they don't lead in worship, and they are not considered leaders or pastors in most SBC churches.

In fact, Gary said that he is aware of only one female church staffer in a Florida SBC whose church has determined that they qualify for the housing allowance.

Thus, don't tell me that all it takes is a church to license a female, or commission a female minister. It is not about getting a piece of paper. To enjoy the tax benefits of a minister, their church leadership (trustees) must vote to authorize her to administer ordinances and lead in worship (preach), and must be viewed by their church as a leader. That ain't going to happen in most SBC churches.

Something is wrong with a system that allows for laymen like Blount and Elkins to be hired on staff and then ordained with no formal training and immediately viewed as "ministers", while female ministers who are seminary trained and are ministering for years in their church, can't be viewed as "ministers" for tax purposes.

As I said, just another reason to do away with the housing allowance benefit for ministers.

114 comments:

I agree, few if any women ministers currently have a housing allowance. It is horribly wrong. But it is just the women who are losing this nice tax benefit that ordination would go a long way towards making them eligible.

Perhaps if the IRS could broaden the criteria it could open the way for women to utilize this benefit. I personally would never put a woman in a staff position where I would otherwise use an ordained person. But once again, citing this as a reason to do away with the housing allowance I don't believe is right, because it would be using the IRS code to penalize people for their religious beliefs.

So, how about the staff person leading a WMU meeting where there is worship and speaking there? When I was young, my mother was a state WMU president and I went along to a number of meetings. What they called speaking and messages were nothing less than preaching and sermons.

Women preachers are ALL false prophets! A woman preacher cannot obey 1st Peter 3:5, i.e., to have a meek and QUIET spirit, when she is preaching with authority from a pulpit.

Don't forget that Eve was the one who was deceived; not Adam. We read in 1st Timothy 2:11-14, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." The Bible gives 2 reasons why women are not to preach, teach or lead men. The fact that God created Adam first is significant. The woman was created FOR the man. Like it or not, no woman will be happy until she is serving a man, i.e., her husband. Thus, men cannot lead if women are getting in the way. The modern idea of a husband and wife both working jobs, and hiring a stranger to raise their kids is insanity. 1st Timothy 5:14 stresses the importance of women being at home. A woman's place is in the home.

You keep saying:"But once again, citing this as a reason to do away with the housing allowance I don't believe is right, because it would be using the IRS code to penalize people for their religious beliefs."

The IRS code did not create this problem--the men leaders of the SBC created it by not being willing to believe that scriptures can often be interpreted correctly more than just one way.

I doubt if the IRS will change this but I'm willing to believe that these latest posts on the HA have gotten some men ministers that receive the HA concerned particularly if it is a large amount.

Yes, I would agree. The HA has outlived it's original intended purpose. i.e. to help those who, because of their profession, were required to maintain a second household. However, since members of congress enjoy this same benefit, I am pretty sure that it will never go away.

If women want the tax break then let them go join a non-SBC denomination. There are plenty of them out there.

I also know plenty of teachers and none of them make as little as most of the preachers I know so your argument doesn't hold water. You're letting Brunson color everything you say and believe and write.

I know of PLENTY of educators at Christian schools, who out of their call of God on their lives choose to teach in Christian schools and earn 1/2 of the already low teacher salaries of public school teachers. I say give them a housing allowance.

And at the very least, if we don't do away with the HA, then modify it so that: 1. pastors who earn large salaries can't abuse it and 2. Allow for all women ministers to enjoy it.

It is quite comical that the wealthy preachers who earn hundreds of thousands of dollars per year use the HA for lavish homes and sometimes multiple homes, but women ministers in their church earning 10% of their pastor's income can't get any HA.

Don't know what Brunson has to do with this. You're letting this blog color everything you say and believe and write.

The Bible makes an issue of the fact that Eve, the first woman, was deceived by Satan. This is significant. Say what you will, women are more vulnerable to Satanic deceptions than are men. Do you know why there are over one billion hellbound Roman Catholics in this world? It's because of mamas! Do you know why Muslim kids strap dynamite on themselves to go blow up dozens of people? It's because of mamas!

"The spiritual life of a nation, city, town, school, church, or home never rises any higher than the spiritual life of women."

SOURCE: Dr. R.G. Lee (Payday Someday)

It's time for women to get back to raising children for the Lord, and to leave the preaching to God's men. Women possess the greatest power in this world, the power of influence; but when women usurp authority over men to do so, their influence becomes one of evil feminism and rebellion.

You said:"it's time for women to get back to raising children for the Lord, and to leave the preaching to God's men. Women possess the greatest power in this world, the power of influence; but when women usurp authority over men to do so, their influence becomes one of evil feminism and rebellion.

Tom-In your reply to Anon 9:52, you seemed to take issue with his/her recommendation to leave the SBC. But the case is, you and others have nothing but problem after problem after problem with how the SBC works. I ask this with all sincerity, why wouldn't you leave? (assuming that you are a membr of the SBC) I'm not being confrontational here, I just do not see the point in making myself miserable, all the time. For this reason I would not belong to an Independent Fundamental Baptist church or to a Methodist church- I'm not going to constantly beat my head against the wall as a part of an organization that I am voluntarily a member of- I cn get out any time!Just a thought. Again, please do not take this as confrontational, I don't know you, so therefore I cannot make any judgment(s) about you, I am merely asking for information sake.Kyle

I understand completely your disdain for the abuse of the housing allowance. But I ask you to consider the other side of it - pastors who do not abuse it but use it in the right context.

Everything that I declare for housing allowance is legally allocated. Last year I had to report extra income since our house payment dropped due to market conditions. I could have fudged the numbers, but didn't. I, along with many other pastors, consider it an integrity issue.

Since I began receiving a housing allowance (and can assure you am by no means getting "rich") we found out my wife no longer qualifies for Pell Grants. So now we have moved from her education being free based on her performance, to having to take out student loans. It doesn't matter that my housing allowance is accounted for to the penny - she still doesn't get those grants.

Stop the abuse of the HA and nail the big fat cats that are abusing it. But remember the ones who aren't making 6 figures in a struggling economy, in churches that are filled with struggling people as well. For us, the HA is a needed benefit - minus the whole Pell Grant fiasco of course. ;-)

The "nutty" person quoted R.G. Lee out of context. Trust me, it was even worse in context. Let me sum it up for you. Behind every bad man is a worse woman. Women are responsible for all the ills of society because they force the poor, defenseless men to do their evil bidding.

Tom-I am not against voicing disagreement. Lord, knows that I have disagreements with the SBC, and probably you and I have some of the same ones. It is fine if you stay, I am not trying to run "dissenters" out of the convention, there needs to be accontability. If you can be happy, then fine. I will say that the day may come that I walk away from the SBC. It's just not that important to me (though I know some in the convention who thinks it is the most important thing). I don't need the SBC, nor do I need it to be to my liking.Kyle

Since I began receiving a housing allowance (and can assure you am by no means getting "rich") we found out my wife no longer qualifies for Pell Grants. So now we have moved from her education being free based on her performance, to having to take out student loans.

Pell Grants are paid by the federal government with taxes they exact from the people who pay taxes and redistribute the money to people who pay little to no taxes. I guess you could consider the HA advantage you now receive a sort of trade-off.

Frankly I don't see how anyone affords a college education today, but to assume the government owes you one, based on performance, income, or any other status rubs me the wrong way.

Besides, don't you realize your wife should be staying home "in her proper place" and not out there competing with the menfolk in the world?

I'm sorry if my thoughts came across as my wife being "owed" an education. However, Pell Grants are designed to my knowledge to reward (so to speak) good students. Why my wife gets penalized for an "advantage" that I get seems a little out of whack to me. Of course, most of what the government does seems out of whack to me...I guess my HA will be an advantage when we start paying back those student loans :)

The point of my post really isn't about anyone being "owed" an education - it's about not removing the HA because the mega-pastor abuses it, or because the SBC doesn't allow everyone to use it. I am an SBC church planter, and have differing views on women in ministry then my denom does. Removing the HA because some abuse it would be like removing the right to drive because some abuse the speed limit.

And no, I would dare not tell her to stay at home - black eyes are not my favorite thing ;-)

My wife received Pell Grants the years I didn't have an HA and we still weren't paying taxes based on our deductions (largely medical). If my amount of taxes paid in haven't changed, in my case it's not a trade off.

We are having this discussion in part due to a complicated and flawed tax code. Our tax code is currently designed to influence social policy and enhance political careers instead of just raising revenues for the constitutional functioning of the three branches of federal government. The hull has been breached on our economic and political Titanic and we are taking on water. All this talk of housing allowances and such is just a rearranging of deck chairs and a wild scramble for a seat on a life boat. God help us all.

One for the anon who finds women to be such trouble-makers: I can see where you'd want to keep them busy scrubbing the floors, washing dishes and clothes and cooking. But why would you want them hanging around your children all day? As a former home-schooler, I can tell you that's a lot of time, a lot of conversations, A LOT of influence. Makes no sense that you'd put that fox in charge of the hen house. Maybe if you didn't allow her a computer or library access that would keep her from getting ideas. Her only source of information could be the Bible and your brain.

Second question: What is so beneficial about the SBC? Is it retirement benefits for the pastor? Access to group health insurance or something? I don't get what they actually DO for churches to begin with. Thanks to anyone who can tell me how this works.

You don't tithe.You aren't a member of an SBC church.You were kicked out of an SBC church.You have no seminary training.You have no experience pastoring a church.

Yet you are an expert in all things Baptist?

---------------------Ouch...but in my defense:

I never tithed, thank God, but did give generously. And I'm with about 90% who don't tithe because it is not a requirement.

I am a member of an SBC church, and I regularly attend an SBC church.

I technically wasn't kicked out...they issued me and my wife trespass papers so we effectively had to leave and find a new church

You are right on one point: I have no seminary training, and I praise the Lord every night that I don't, else I wouldn't have the discernment I have. I actually have three very useful degrees, a B.S. in Electrical Engineering, a Master's degree in Environmental Engineering, and an MBA...all from the University of Florida. I would take any one of those over a Ph.D. from a seminary.

I definitely have no experience pastoring a church. Another net positive in my favor I'd say. :)

Not an expert of all things Baptist, just a discerning believer who writes about them, and have a forum for guys like you to disagree with me.

I stay with the SBC primarily because of their focus on missions. That is the only thing keeping me from jumping ship. When I was a pastor in a previous state, the SBC state convention stopped matching our retirement (and others) because our missions giving decreased below a percentage they deemed acceptable. It didn't matter that our giving decreased because our church was directly funding missions instead of going through the middle man.

I think the SBC used to be good to pastors, judging from discussions I've had with those who have been around a few years. They do have decent health insurance programs. But recently the Convention's loyalty to its pastors has been reduced to the $$$ flowing from the pastors church. I am confident there will be a day when I am not a part of the SBC anymore, either by my choice or by their dismissal.

According to traditional Baptist theology and ecclesiology, WD is a priest, like every other Christian, and equal to every other Christian in that regard. So he has as much right to have and express his opinion as does anyone with a seminary degree or degrees, 40 years in the pulpit, or whatever. Baptist history and practice says ALL ARE EQUAL AND HAVE AN EQUAL RIGHT TO SPEAK.

When an individual accepts ordination, his employment status changes. No longer is this person employed by a church or religious institution. The individual is self-employed and must then play the employer portion of FICA. In other words, the individual immediately receives a pay DECREASE of 7.65%. Some churches adjust the salary of the newly ordained minister, but many do not. The housing allowance offsets the reduction in take-home pay. The percentage of ministers who abuse the housing allowance provision is VERY small. Let's not penalize the many pastors who labor for a fair wage.

The Bible does not reveal Satan’s motive for beginning with Eve. It just records the fact that Eve was the first to be tempted and deceived, and the first to sin. We are not told whether it was part of a deliberate strategy of Satan, or if his choice was just random. But the fact that we do not know for sure why Satan chose Eve does not negate the force of 1st Timothy 2:14, which says that Eve’s being the one who was deceived does have something to do with women’s being prohibited from teaching men and having authority over men in the New Testament church.

The really significant point is that (according to 1st Timothy 2:14) it is not the transgression itself, but the deception that is being held against Eve. The fact that Eve was deceived by the Devil is in some way related to the fact that women are not permitted to teach men and have authority over men in the church. We simply cannot deny this connection. The problem, though, is to explain it. Exactly what is the connection?

It is possible that there is something inherent in women’s nature that somehow makes them more vulnerable to deception concerning spiritual matters and; therefore, less qualified to teach men and have authority over men in the context of the church. This would be consistent with Peter’s description of woman as the "weaker vessel" (1st Peter 3:7). Peter does not explain the nature of this "weakness," nor does he suggest that it constitutes some kind of flaw or fault in women. Whatever it is, it would be consistent with the role for which God created woman in the first place. That is to say, the characteristics that make a woman more strongly suited for her intended role in the family and church, make her weaker with reference to what is required for duties of headship and leadership. Such characteristics probably have to do more with her emotional rather than her intellectual nature.

Whatever this "weaker" nature may be, it is possible,

Whatever this "weaker" nature may be, it is possible, if not likely, that this is what Paul has in mind as underlying the fact that Eve was deceived by Satan whereas Adam was not, and that this is the very same thing that disqualifies women from teaching men and having authority over men. If this is so, then the reason for this disqualification is not Eve’s sin at all. Neither is the disqualification some kind of penalty, either for her sin or for allowing herself to be deceived.

It is simply some inherent, created female characteristic that manifests itself in susceptibility to this kind of deception.

I have a question. It's not my intention to be disagreeable, but I often wonder when when it comes to these gender conversations if we have truly resolved ourselves to the idea that equality means the same as _____ whatever concept you want to fill in the blank with? But does it really?

As a woman I don't feel any need to achieve anything other than what God's best for me might be. I can't find any evidence in scripture that I fall lower in the pecking order than men, or that my value to the body of the Christ is in any way diminished. I'm called to be what God has chosen for me because I am created with different qualities than men. Vice versa applies. I am in every way, that counts, as valuable and precious to the Lord as the next person. I am only different.

I know that our culture imposes all kinds of clashing values and ethics. Sometimes when we view all things as absolutely equal, we lose the very thing that makes us unique in all of God's creation.

For all of our hollering about equality, we might well be sorry about the result we might get.

I agree with Tom that women should be paid and receive benefits equally if they indeed perform the same job as their men counterparts. I'm just not convinced the work is exactly the same. It might be essential, important, visionary and grounded in sound doctrine, but not necessarily the same.

Perhaps I'm a bigot, but I will not attend a church that has a woman Pastor. I believe that is what scripture teaches. But that's a far cry from barefoot and pregnant. I accept that people will disagree. When I served in the Navy for all those years, I heard plenty about gender discrimination. Some women pushed and pushed until now they have what they wanted and have now discovered it wasn't all that they bargained for. But it is equal treatment, yes? It's not in practicality but it looks good in the media print.

I do have an observation that I think applies. If you look at the Lutherans (ELCA), Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians (USA), etc., you will see one of the dying denominations who don't know what they believe and it seems to me they don't care as long as John Shelby Spong says it's okay. What is the common denominator? They have all ordained women. I might be way off on this, but I'm convinced there is a correlation. Oddly, I don't completely blame the women for this.

This is not an attempt to blast, berate or belittle your opinion. I believe that we all should do our utmost to follow God's calling upon our life. Having said that, I do not believe that it is my place to determine God's calling for your life, nor your place to determine his calling upon anyone else's life.

If a woman feels that God has called her to the pastoral ministry she should follow that calling. I personally think that it is a very poor exegesis of scripture that would suggest that God emphatically does not qualify and gift women for the pastoral ministry.

The bottom line is this. Scripture + Personal Bias = Whatever you want it to. It is only when we dare to remove personal bias from the equation that we can begin to hear clearly the word of God.

God's revealed name in scripture is "YHWH" (I will be who I will be). Anyone who says that God would never call a woman to be a pastor is placing limits on God that He does not place on Himself.

There has been, and continues to be, places and conditions that would make it difficult or even dangerous for a Woman to preach. However, these circumstances have to do with culture and not theology.I personally know several Women who have very fantastic and fruitful ministries.

The fact is that there are sincere people on both sides of the argument of women pastors. Neither side is likely to change their position. When a SBC church calls a woman to pastor, they know that they are basically asking to get kicked out of their local association. So why not just preempt that action and voluntarily leave? By their calling a woman to pastor they are saying they don't want to be SBC. I wouldn't go be Presbyterian or Methodist because I disagree on several issues with them.

But when people want to use the IRS to get people to change their sincerely held religious beliefs because their side has lost the fight in a denomination, then they are as guilty of discrimination as anyone could be.

You said:"do have an observation that I think applies. If you look at the Lutherans (ELCA), Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians (USA), etc., you will see one of the dying denominations who don't know what they believe and it seems to me they don't care as long as John Shelby Spong says it's okay. What is the common denominator? They have all ordained women. I might be way off on this, but I'm convinced there is a correlation. Oddly, I don't completely blame the women for this."

Bizarre comment is all I can say. You are finding what you are looking for.

You said:"The fact is that there are sincere people on both sides of the argument of women pastors. Neither side is likely to change their position. When a SBC church calls a woman to pastor, they know that they are basically asking to get kicked out of their local association. So why not just preempt that action and voluntarily leave? By their calling a woman to pastor they are saying they don't want to be SBC. I wouldn't go be Presbyterian or Methodist because I disagree on several issues with them. "

So these churches are asking to be kicked out? Really??

What do other SBC churches do that call out for them to be kicked out?

As you said about Bailey Edwards Nelson in a comment during the last month-- she is nameless for you she is just the "lady."

Would you really look this young woman in the face and tell her that her call to the ministry is a false one.

Your idea of what is a SBC as it relates to women is not nearly as popular as you might think.

There is going to be a revolt someday in the SBC about this issue and you and the others just might be surprised at the results of the revolution.

The amazing part about FUNDAMENTALIST like yourself is you can not conceive that you might be wrong on this issue of women in ministry, whereas fundamentalist like myself and others are willing to admit that we might be wrong in our view.

Disagreement on such non salvation matters used to be allowed until the TAKEOVER.

If I had referred to her as the pastor you would have been fine with that regardless if I used her name or not. I didn't use her name, quite frankly, because I couldn't remember it and I didn't think to look back to article while I was typing the comment. I wasn't going to call her pastor because of personal belief issues, so I called her what I was taught to call women which is lady. I was not disrespectful, I was showing respect by calling her lady.

You may be right about the revolution someday, and if that happpens and the majority is on your side I'll do what I expect them to do, leave. BTW, your not a fundamentalist, if your were you would see the CR was necessary.

To think that fellow believers have such a low view of women believers, who take a narrow view of how God can't use a woman for certain tasks, with a narrow interpretation of scripture, and no tolerance for other views...it makes me want my daughter to not be a Southern Baptist. Then people believing that women are someone by nature inferior to men because Eve was supposedly deceived first....sickening.

The fact is that some very conservative people, people who do believe in the inerrancy of scripture, believe that a right interpretation of the New Testament is that God CAN use a woman to function as a pastor or elder. And those of you who use that as a "you must leave the convention" if you believe that...it truly is unbelievable.

Did I read this guy right about Eve and her sin and therefore his view of women?

"It is simply some inherent, created female characteristic that manifests itself in susceptibility to this kind of deception."

HUH?

He wrote..."Do you know why Muslim kids strap dynamite on themselves to go blow up dozens of people? It's because of mamas!"

HUH?

Then this garbage...

"The fact that God created Adam first is significant. The woman was created FOR the man. Like it or not, no woman will be happy until she is serving a man, i.e., her husband. Thus, men cannot lead if women are getting in the way. The modern idea of a husband and wife both working jobs, and hiring a stranger to raise their kids is insanity. 1st Timothy 5:14 stresses the importance of women being at home. A woman's place is in the home."

In Genesis, Eve is called Adam's helpmeet. In Psalms, the same Hebrew word refers to God as the helpmeet of a human being. Take that as you will, but I think it could suggest that Eve should be above Adam in the ecclesiological hierarchy!

You said:"The fact is that some very conservative people, people who do believe in the inerrancy of scripture, believe that a right interpretation of the New Testament is that God CAN use a woman to function as a pastor or elder. And those of you who use that as a "you must leave the convention" if you believe that...it truly is unbelievable."

Folks like John Wylie can only deal with things being 100% their way.

They probably go the following comment on their report card when they were growing up--they do not play well with others that are different than them.

You said to me:"The CR was a beautiful thing, it sent most of the liberals packing so they could go spend their own money for a change. BTW, I noticed that they don't do very well when they rely on their own money."

You know not what you are speaking of.

Beautiful it was not! A great denomination does not exist anymore--It was hijacked by folks who cared not what they did to fellow believers.

BTW all those CR Presidents of the SBC who gave so little to the CP program took over the piles of money that were not theirs and spent them.

You have a very warped view of the CR, but sadly you have plenty of company.

And you don't want everything 100% your way? You have been every bit as absolutist as I've been in this conversation. You spoke of a future revolution in the SBC, which is enforcing your will on others.

The actions of the CBF (mostly made up of people who left the SBC) are enough proof of liberals who left. You remember in 2001 when 40% of their messengers voted at their annual meeting to affirm homosexual missionaries?

Tom Rich, I really never meant to hijack you comment stream, I'm sorry. Tom Parker and I just get under each other's skin. I'll try to stay on subject

You said:"The actions of the CBF (mostly made up of people who left the SBC) are enough proof of liberals who left. You remember in 2001 when 40% of their messengers voted at their annual meeting to affirm homosexual missionaries?"

Where is your proof for this statement? I do not remember any such a thing.

I find it ineresting that during the tithing debate some time back, many on here who saying tithing was not New Testament were basically quoting John MacArthur like it was the gospel. Now, you can't find John MacArthur being quoted, by these same people, if you had a FBI search warrant.Why is that? If he is correct doctrinally on tithing, wouldn't it stand the chance that he is right doctrinally on women as pastors? And if he is wrong about women as pastors, might he be wrong about tithing?All I am asking for is consistency here. How easy we are to pick up someone's words when they validate our cause and dump them when they contradict our interpretation. We might say the same thing about those who invoke Adrian Rogers, Homer Lindsay, Jr, Jerry Vines and others. Kyle

“When an individual accepts ordination, his employment status changes. No longer is this person employed by a church or religious institution. The individual is self-employed and must then play the employer portion of FICA.”

Not entirely true that’s an election the church makes.

“In other words, the individual immediately receives a pay DECREASE of 7.65%.”

Again, not true since every employer I have worked for considers the employer portion of OASDI and Medicare as a fringe benefit and adjusts salaries appropriately. Also, half of the self-employment tax is a deduction from gross income thus reducing the actual effect to between 3 and 5%. Ministers are hardly the only ones paying self-employment taxes since it something every self-employed person pays.

“Some churches adjust the salary of the newly ordained minister, but many do not.”

Again, a choice by the church. Personally, I would want to Pastor a church that pays me appropriately. If the church cannot afford a full time minister then it should not employee one.

“The housing allowance offsets the reduction in take-home pay”

Which is more than offset by excluding the housing allowance from taxable income and deducting real estate taxes and mortgage interest as itemized deductions. So in the end, Ministers come out at least 20% ahead. Just do the math. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 only limited these deductions to the amount that exceeds the housing allowance. Seems fair to me.

“The percentage of ministers who abuse the housing allowance provision is VERY small. Let's not penalize the many pastors who labor for a fair wage.”

Agreed. So again make it a fading benefit that disappears at $100,000 of adjusted gross income.

In almost 40 years of tax preparation and after preparing tax returns for hundreds of ministers, I have never seen a minister pay taxes on their housing allowance. Oh, and interestingly about 20% don’t tithe.

I don't know who the guy is at the Florida Baptist Convention. I take it he knows what the IRS looks for, however.

A church can certainly give to any person on its staff, male or female, the duties described in 1-5. It could "commission" a woman as a minister of the Gospel, it could give her management responsibility, and it could allow her to lead in areas of worship.

But it could do all of this and have her remain under the authority of a pastor or elders who are male. I am not advocating that. I am just trying to think of a way a church could do this, and it seems that it could.

Again, I am for a housing allowance or any tax deduction for individuals just on the principle of being for tax deductions.

I am not for doing away with the deduction because some churches who hire women in leadership positions don't know how to arrange things for these women to claim the deduction.

The real point of the post may be to criticize reserving the pastoral or elder role for men. But that is a different question, I think.

Wish I Had Known-Thanks for playing, but what does your response have to do with my calling for consistency? You have not answered my question, regarding using a source if it builds your argument, yet when that same source contradicts your case (albeit a different subject) it is as if that person is non-existent. I have no problem with you quoting your source(s), you should do that.However, I have yet to see someone say, until my comment, wait a minute MacArthur was dead on regarding the tithing thing, but now I disagree with him regarding women. Is he right and I am wrong? Is he wrong on both issues, is he right on both issues? That is all I am asking for. Kyle

Louis - what you are advocating is illegal, if the church tries to skirt the tax law to give the female a tax advantage without actually bestowing on her the ability to perform those functions.

Gary Townsend did tell me that some churches do "commission" people, but this usually is for specific areas of ministry, such as commissioning a female staffer for the ministry to children.

The bottom line is that for a woman to qualify as a minister, she has to be licensed, ordained, or commissioned to perform the tasks prescribed. For instance FBC Jax could "license" a female to baptize, preach, and could give her the title of "pastor"...but those would be words on paper with no meaning. Everyone knows she is not a "pastor", she will never preach or lead worship or even pray in a service, she can't marry anyone in the church or conduct a funeral or baptize...for her to even teach men in a Sunday School class would be scandalous.

First of all watchdog in being qualified in leading an ordinance is the Protestant-Catholic dilecticism that was set up in the Reformation concerning ordinances. The issue of the Lord Supper ordinance was originally in accordance to time of Passover not necessarily of it being elder led. In 2016, Passover will be a month off the Gregorian calendar observance of Resurrection Sunday once again. Will Protestant churches follow the way of Rome and follow their popes. Oscar Skarsone has shown the early church ALWAYS observed Resurrection Sunday as the Sunday after the Passover. Let the Word be primary authority!

Detractors of the Fellowship note that CBF has never passed a resolution condemning homosexual practice. That “silence” is used as proof that CBF is “pro-gay.” The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship does not issue “official” positions on homosexuality or other social issues, for to do so lies outside CBF’s stated mission. Rather than issuing proclamations in hierarchical ways that are foreign to historic Baptist principles of faith and practice, CBF seeks to be a resource to help churches deal redemptively with the complex moral and social issues of the day.

In 2000, the CBF Coordinating Council adopted an organizational policy on homosexual behavior related to personnel and funding.

As Baptist Christians, we believe that the foundation of a Christian sexual ethic is faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman and celibacy in singleness. We also believe in the love and grace of God for all people, both for those who live by this understanding of the biblical standard and those who do not. We treasure the freedom of individual conscience and the autonomy of the local church, and we also believe that congregational leaders should be persons of moral integrity whose lives exemplify the highest standards of Christian conduct and character. Because of this organizational value, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship does not allow for the expenditure of funds for organizations or causes that condone advocate or affirm homosexual practice. Neither does this CBF organizational value allow for the purposeful hiring of a staff person or the sending of a missionary who is a practicing homosexual.

This policy is a very clear statement about CBF as an organization and its understanding of the sexual ethic in the Bible. Yet, this policy does not presume upon any individual or local church.

This organizational hiring policy was brought to the 2001 General Assembly in Orlando. Some Assembly participants wanted the policy studied for an additional year and then presented at the 2002 Assembly. Others thought the CBF Coordinating Council had developed a statement that reflected the preferences of the vast majority of Fellowship Baptists and yet respected the autonomy of any local church that differed with the CBF organizational policy statement. The question came to a vote: should CBF engage in a review of this policy decision for another year? The vote was 58 percent not to continue with a study and 42 percent wanting another year of study.

CBF detractors used this close margin to conclude that CBF was evenly divided on this topic of homosexuality. CBF detractors use scare tactics about this vote when describing the Fellowship. Since the topic of homosexuality is such a current “hot button topic” within some churches, it is important to explain how a vote could be so close and yet not be reflective of that same percentage of total CBF members.

And you can read the rest yourself.

Ten years later, and the CBF policy against hiring homosexuals stands.

It's interesting to note that University Baptist Church (mentioned in the Baptist Standard article) left the CBF of their own accord. They weren't told "if you don't like it, leave."

To think that fellow believers have such a low view of women believers, who take a narrow view of how God can't use a woman for certain tasks, with a narrow interpretation of scripture, and no tolerance for other views...it makes me want my daughter to not be a Southern Baptist. Then people believing that women are someone by nature inferior to men because Eve was supposedly deceived first....sickening.

The fact is that some very conservative people, people who do believe in the inerrancy of scripture, believe that a right interpretation of the New Testament is that God CAN use a woman to function as a pastor or elder. And those of you who use that as a "you must leave the convention" if you believe that...it truly is unbelievable.

I really have nothing to add, WD. I just thought that deserved repeating.

The Baptist Standard article stated:"The policy, adopted originally by the Fellowship's governing board, survived a challenge at this summer's general assembly when delegates voted 701-502 against rescinding it for a yearlong study of where CBF churches stand on the issue."

The article originated from the ABP. It says that it was the policy (of not hiring gay employees or funding pro homosexual organizationa) that was challenged. 502 messengers voted to rescind the policy in order to have a yearlong study on the issue.

I'm well aware that their policy of not hiring gay employees still stands. But Tom Parker denied that there were liberals who left the SBC over the CR. The CBF is made up to a large degree of former SBC people. Anyone can see that there are significant numbers in their ranks who disagree with the prohibition on gay denominational employees.

The vote was NOT whether to bar gays from serving. It was whether the issue and policy should be STUDIED for another year before being adopted.

This is the classic CR tactic -- LIE about those who disagree with you, define what they did differently than what was, and smear, smear, smear. They could have taught Sen. McCarthy a thing or two, and Adolf could have learned from them.

You said:"his is the classic CR tactic -- LIE about those who disagree with you, define what they did differently than what was, and smear, smear, smear. They could have taught Sen. McCarthy a thing or two, and Adolf could have learned from them."

Sadly, Anon they are still very good at this tactic. Patterson and the others taught these willing folks all of their tricks. I think for some it has just become a form of a sport.

Most people try to fly below the radar with these guys.

If the truth could be found out they have a fear of each other that borders on paranoia.

They see what is done to the innocent and how easy it is and fear that it will be done to them.

These folks love to say they thank God for the CR, but I feel confident God would do say to them do not thank me as I had little to do with the CR, it was your doing and so if you feel good about it pat yourself on the back but leave me out of it.

Thanks to the guy who answered my questions re the advantages of being in the SBC. I read so many comments after that that I forgot your name. Anyway, Thanks.

And I assume even for Independent Baptist Churches (my background) they have some kind of group that serves as a vehicle for health insurance, etc.

As somewhat of a former insider and now an outsider, I see that I have much more freedom in my thinking. I have no obligation to be biblical-I don't have to worry about people who have a different interpretation of scripture than me. Scripture becomes a fascinating academic exercise-who was it written to? When? Why? What were they trying to accomplish? Why were certain "books" deemed worthy of being in the canon and others not? Etc.

So what I see is people who are extremely disturbed by homosexuality and women pastors. Has a woman pastor or homosexual ever harmed you personally in any way? A "live-and-let-live" attitude seems so much less stressful and simply makes more sense. But then, I don't have "God's Word" as a huge weight around my neck. I'm free to THINK. Actually everyone on here is free to think, but I guess they feel they must subdue that and do what the Bible says. I don't think thinking is a biblical value-although I don't doubt for a minute that probably everybody on here is plenty intelligent.

I've had a lot of interruptions from my talkative son, so I've lost my train of thought. But I think my point is grown, straight men arguing over gays and women preachers and whether stuff is biblical seems a little silly to me. Sorry. I think you're selling yourself short.

Re women preachers-I personally like men a little more than women generally, and would much prefer a man preacher simply because I like men better. Maybe it's like men would love to see a beautiful, sexy woman up there preaching or singing, and I like listening and observing an intelligent, good-looking guy up there-lol.

Re gays-my sister is gay and has been with her partner for 27 years. They are two of the best, most decent people I know of. The thought that their relationship is immoral is absurd to me. I'd trust them with my life and all of my children.

This has been an interesting, if somewhat sprawling, discussion and I appreciate WD taking time to chase down some real sources of information on the HA.

The HA cannot be reasonably justified on the basis that clergy need it or that they pay more in other taxes.It is a tax break pure and simple. I like it and use it legally. I will not kick and scream if it is eliminated as a part of tax reform. Until then, http://sbcplodder.blogspot.com/2011/08/you-can-have-my-housing-allowance-when.html

The commenter who mentioned Pell grants reminded me that there are a number of government benefits which are means tested. It is unreasonable to think that the HA should not be considered income for means testing. We get a check every pay period for the HA.

But that does beg another a question. I can agree it is inappropriate with ordaining women as pastors but is it not equally inappropriate to ordain men simply so the men and the church can take advantage of the tax breaks ordination provides?Over the years I have seen numerous men hired by the church to fill administrative roles who are then ordained. The work they do could just as easily be done by them as an employee. This seems more wrong to me and diminishes the call to pastor.

The issue for me w/ Pell Grants is not that I have a problem with "means testing". My issue is that in 2008-2010, when I made the SAME amount of money but wasn't ordained yet and therefore didn't get an HA my wife received Pell Grants. Now all of a sudden, because I receive this HA tax "break", and don't make ANY MORE money than I did in previous years (I actually make less) she doesn't get the opportunity to receive the grants. I have no problem w/ the gov't or anyone saying "You make too much money to qualify for _______" But when I make less now than I did, how is that justifiable just because I receive an HA?

Oh and I left out of my discussion about self employed vs employee taxation the fact that as a self employed person, you can fully deduct your business related expenses and half of your health insurance premiums from gross income without having to worry about the limitations imposed on itemized deductions.

You know, I don't want to get into a spitting contest here - it's true as a "self employed" person I and other pastors can take some business deductions, etc...but there is more to it.

As an un-ordained minister, employee of the church, my health insurance was graciously paid for by the church. When I became "self-employed", I had to start paying for it all. So deducting half is not that big a deal. As to business expenses, because the HA is such a touchy subject I have to keep extensive records as a pastor in regards to mileage, lunches, etc...as does anyone who is self-employed. Of course, if I'm making LESS money, than chances are I'm probably not taking a lot of people out to eat, so we can throw that deduction out the window.

I'm not advocating that I somehow have it hard - I am blessed to have a check coming in, and grateful for the position I have. It does seem wrong and even unfair to punish my wife or any other pastor's wife in this area of Pell Grants simply because of the HA.

I could see how a woman, such as Mrs. Norman, could qualify under items 3 , 4, and 5. But I think eliminating the allowance may be best. At least that way we aren't subsidizing housing for cult leaders. Rural churches/pastors will be hit hardest but the people can handle it.

The ABP (no friend of the CR) made it clear in the article the vote was whether or not to "rescind the policy" of not hiring gay employees. Tom Parker, I'm sorry that you can't read and comprehend. The article that New BBC quoted was just a defender of the CBF's take on what happened.

Tom Parker what's really funny in all this is that you never added anything of substance to the conversation. New BBC was the one who offered an opinion that differed with mine, but all you did was call me a liar. It's clear since I've been reading your comments you lack the intelligence and integrity to bring a defense yourself. I stand by everything I've said. It's not me but you and other liberals who have problems with the truth.

It differes in some other religious traditions but ordained Baptist ministers have a dual status - employee for income tax purposes, self employed for Social Security. You get a W-2 from the church but it doesn't include the HA or any Social Security or Medicare wages.

Honestly, I probably am missing something ;-) I have been investigating the dual-status deal a little more. My W-2 did have my HA listed on it, under a separate box however.

WishIhadknown - I'm not into splitting hairs either. But, when I was receiving straight salary instead of dual salary plus HA, my wife did receive Pell Grants. I might clarify that for the last 12 years I've been a pastor, only ordained and receiving the HA for the last 3 months of 2009 and all of 2010. In all those years prior to HA, as an employee of the church, she qualified. Just doesn't make sense to me...

Add to all this that I have a book coming out this fall and I will for sure need to hire someone for tax time next year...i've got too many things to juggle now, haha!

"But once again, citing this as a reason to do away with the housing allowance I don't believe is right, because it would be using the IRS code to penalize people for their religious beliefs."

John, What does our belief system have to do with the tax system. Are you suggesting there is no freedom of religion without your tax break? How ridiculous.

That thinking is the problem. You are owed nothing from the government. Unless of course, you think you are owed tax breaks to preach. I think you demonstrate what is wrong with the church in your thinking.

"How about this. Let's keep the housing allowance and do away with the SBC. That should take care of the discrimination."

Here Here! And all it takes is for the money to dry up. The SBC preachers will have to become Presbyterians. Except for Mac and Gaines...they will become Pentecostals. After all, wanting a stage to perform on is what it is all about.

But the fact that we do not know for sure why Satan chose Eve does not negate the force of 1st Timothy 2:14, which says that Eve’s being the one who was deceived does have something to do with women’s being prohibited from teaching men and having authority over men in the New Testament church."

And I suppose you also believe that women are "saved" in childbearing. It would fit your faulty interpretation.

I am more and more amazed at how many people do not believe the cross is enough for women to overcome this alledged "inherent" deception gene passed down from Eve.

I suppose men got the "sin on purpose" gene from Adam. And that makes them more qualified to lead?Do a deep Greek Study on the word "authenteo" used in 1 Tim 2. Then realize that the temple of Artemis in Ephesus (considereg wonder ofthe world at the time) ght that Eve was created first. Paul was simply correcting that wrong view and false teaching coming from A (singular) woman in the church at Ephesus.

Stop being ignorant and listening to the charlatans on stages. Study to show yourself approved. If you believe women are destined to be decieved even after salvation and sanctification then you do not know the power of the Cross or the Holy Spirit.

Now, here is a woman who has been drinking the CBMW koolaid. This is a woman who does not believe that women obtain the FULL inheritance of salvation we see in Galatians. Certain spiritual gifts are withheld from women because they do not possess the right sex organs.

AFter all, it is really not a spiritual question, is it. If it were, then how could women strive to be Christlike since Christ came as a male?

John, You won't know about all the people thrown under the bus during the CR until J-Day. Many were NOT liberals but considered not to be team players because they did not go along with all the witch hunts. And it is still going on today. Just try being an low level employee at sBTS and disagreeing with Mohler publicly on anything. You will be gone. Try it with Patterson.

The CR was political wrapped in a slogan of inerrancy. I was all for it at the time and then watched as many decent people were thrown under buses so the big boys could consolidate power.

You have bought a mess of pottage but won't know it until J-Day because you are enamoured with the celebs. Follow Christ. Not these empty suits who make merchandise of the Gospel.

John, if the CR worked so well then how come so many SBC churches have been featured on Christa Brown's blog as harboring molesters or passing them along? I give you Patterson's defense of Gilyard as Exhibit A.

I suppose believing in inerrancy did not translate into changed lives or discernment?

You said:"John, You won't know about all the people thrown under the bus during the CR until J-Day. Many were NOT liberals but considered not to be team players because they did not go along with all the witch hunts. And it is still going on today. Just try being an low level employee at sBTS and disagreeing with Mohler publicly on anything. You will be gone. Try it with Patterson."

John does not care about these folks--to him and others these folks just as well of been children of the devil.

But good old PP and PP showed these soldiers how to conduct a type of warfare against these "liberals" that unfortunately was highly successful.

Yeah it declines more everyday. But the CBF was dead from the start. You talk about name calling but you've done nothing but call me names from the very start of this conversation. Then you called me a liar even after I provided the proof. The biggest lie you told was when you denied the reality of liberalism in the convention that had to be taken care of. There were professors that didn't believe the first eleven chapters of Genesis were literal. They denied the scriptures were inerrant. They denied that Christ was the only way to salvation. And after I post this you'll deny all these things were true. But you don't get to decide what the truth is, the facts speak for themselves.

The comments I made about the CBF were not a smear but an example of the liberalism you denied.

New BBC, I want you to know I respect you, I don't know if you can say the same about me after my rant this week. I just couldn't put up with Tom Parker's constant insults anymore, especially when he couldn't add any substance to the conversation.

You still will not admit that you tried to smear the CBF unfairly and were even dishonest in what you were trying to claim about this christian group of people.

As I said you just used a tried and true CR tactic of smearing a whole group of people that someone taught you really well.

The sad part about is that for you and others "liberalism" allowed you and others to demonize fellow believers and to force them from the SBC.

I know you and I will never see eye to eye and there was a time in my life when that would have really bothered me, but as I read once--the only way you can work out a disagreement with a FUNDAMENTALIST is to obey them and that I am not willing to do.

Any group that needs too conduct a study to determine what its position should be on hiring homosexual employees is far from christian. I didn't misrepresent anything, the ABP article was clear that what was being voted on was the policy concerning hiring gay employees and supporting pro homosexual organizations. The Catch 22 article was just a CBF supporter's spin. I know you're going to disagree but the only one of us two who has put forth any evidence to support their claims is me, because you have no evidence. I would say you're being dishonest, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're probably just ignorant. I doubt you read any of the articles.

Know you slander these folks at the CBF. That is straight out of the CR playbook also.I hope that you are never on the receiving end of your conservative brothers. You know the hard ball that they play. But don't be surprised when it happens. Conservatives do not play well with each other.

While I support a crackdown on abusive and dishonest use of these tax benefits, I do support the housing allowance for ministers. Many small churches would be unable to support their pastors adequately and few pastors could commit to small churches without this benefit.

Clicker

About Me

We're small, insignificant, and harmless. But we have a loud, piercing bark that seems to annoy those in mega churches the most. Not Kool-Aid drinkers, only fresh, filtered water, please; with Grape or Cherry flavoring from Walmart. "Let him alone; God hath bidden him to speak:"